Bob, you keep bleating on about "best practice" as if you're some sort of expert on this, and that's certainly the impression you're desperate to give.

When you PM'd me and gave me your company's website I expected a well known internet marketing consultancy. Instead, without breaching your persec, all I found was a site marketing a line of rather bizarre beauty products! Sorry, Bob, but however good you are at selling snake oil it doesn't make you an expert on this.

LE

The Orderly Room won't know where the unit's JNCOs are? I find that a little unlikely even for the RLC.
Fair point, but while a SSM should have input to a SJAR under no circumstances should he write any part of it.
I'd like to think not all, even now.

Orderly room, what’s that?
The are aware that the MS burden has moved downwards to the SNCOs now aren’t you? Well at least in my Corps anyway, meaning the SSM potentially has more sway in its contents.

LE

The Orderly Room won't know where the unit's JNCOs are? I find that a little unlikely even for the RLC.
Fair point, but while a SSM should have input to a SJAR under no circumstances should he write any part of it.

Phone the orderly room asking for that info and you'll either get told to do one or the fact that they haven't got up to the date info.

by that I mean they could tell you who is on or off camp or on leave but less important stuff, to them, like who's on a aft or who's on a instructional course, less so.

SSMs do have input on the sjar. Sjars are not written in isolation. Sqn heading boards made up of to cdrs, possibly ssgts, ssm, 2ic and oc ensure that one person is handing in the report but not necessarily producing it.

when the sqn rankings come out, you can be sure the ssm's opinion could push a jnco from top to second.

a better way for that PM of the Cpl's mess to handle it would be asking for non-attendees to let him know they can't attend. I know it's a little quaint. No shows could then be passed to the respective ssm for investigation.

The simple expediency of putting the cpl's club on the arrival shot would ensure folk 'book in'.

Finally , membership isn't mandatory. Rather than just being petulant the info could express his or her opinions and follow his convictions.

When ever i was in a cpl's mess i found them useful in the main. A chance for cpl's to pass stuff up, and the cofc to pass stuff down and have some pretty good nights.

it's also a signal that the jnco needs to start separating themselves from the ptes (& jncos) they lead.

Old-Salt

The benefits definitely outweigh the cons. I know it varies by rank, cap badge and role but honestly... So many people come, do 4 years and go without taking advantage of the excellent opportunities the MoD provide.

Apparently your Army's not even at the red jacket stage yet but still wearing woad!

Pre-digital age any orderly room / unit admin office, at least in the inf and in my experience, would have had all this information updated on a daily basis, even if it had to be carried there in a cleft stick or tucked into some native's loincloth. I recall having a similar discussion with @Stacker some time ago when he defended not knowing how many soldiers were in his tp on an ongoing basis.

Sorry, but if the Army's idea of progress is IT systems that can't produce this sort of routine information with minimal effort when it was readily and routinely available forty years ago then as @lacrabat suggested the systems really aren't progress but are a step backwards.

I'm not sure what part of "WTF is a SSM doing dictating what goes in to a JNCO's SJAR? I'd ask for and value his input, but as a Pl Comd I'd resent his thinking he had a right to dictate what went into it, and as Adjt or OC I'd tell him to wind his neck in" and "Fair point, but while a SSM should have input to a SJAR under no circumstances should he write any part of it" you're correcting me on.

a better way for that PM of the Cpl's mess to handle it would be asking for non-attendees to let him know they can't attend. I know it's a little quaint. No shows could then be passed to the respective ssm for investigation.

LE

By looking at the MoD stats of recruits' replies to the question "Where did you learn about careers in the Armed Forces?" in the Recruit Trainee Survey.

Maybe if you checked instead of making wild assumptions your posts would have rather more validity.
Well, Bob, at least it doesn't make me WRONG!

Bob, you keep bleating on about "best practice" as if you're some sort of expert on this, and that's certainly the impression you're desperate to give.

When you PM'd me and gave me your company's website I expected a well known internet marketing consultancy. Instead, without breaching your persec, all I found was a site marketing a line of rather bizarre beauty products! Sorry, Bob, but however good you are at selling snake oil it doesn't make you an expert on this.

Like you I’m able to look at a website and see if it’s anywhere near best practice.....you’ve told us that the Army website isn’t good. The difference here is that you think it’s unimportant. I think it’s fundamental and that’s what I’m arguing. I’m allowed a different oppinion....

I PMd a link to one of my websites because it follows best practice as close as a small business can do. It works mechanically; the PC, tablet and phone are all optimised, the pop ups all have buttons that go where they’re supposed to go and the forms are all phone friendly. The email marketing behind it all works and adds value with content.

The branding is consistent, the images and content are audience relevant and content is always cross refered across social media in an integrated manner. Social media also has buttons that take users straight to where they want to go and where they will do what we want them to do - in my case, spend their money.

Shit websites don’t convert. Shit social media doesn’t drive people to websites or take them back there if they leave. Shit advertising doesn’t create leads. It really doesn’t take the brains of an archbishop to work that out.

LE

Like you I’m able to look at a website and see if it’s anywhere near best practice.....you’ve told us that the Army website isn’t good. The difference here is that you think it’s unimportant. I think it’s fundamental and that’s what I’m arguing.

Bob, you just don't get it and I don't think you ever will. You appear to be not only on a different planet but reading a different forum with different posts (yours as well as mine) to those here.

The first "difference here" is that I've never pretended or claimed to know what "best practice" is - it's not my field and neither is it yours. I don't have any such expertise and yours appears to be based on selling women's skin care products of curious origin to MILFs.

... and I haven't said that I think the website's "unimportant" but that it's FFP, despite obvious faults like having to register and log on, markedly better than similar from others like the RN, RAF, Police, etc, and that it's far from the main issue that needs adressing to resolve the Army's ongoing recruiting issues.

You appear to think that if the website's issues are corrected then applications from the right people will flood in and, as long as there are no delays in the application process, they'll readily convert to recruits and capable soldiers and end the downward spiral of Army recruiting.

John,
Your aptitude for pedantry knows no bounds. I am not going to get into a protracted spat with you (because that's your SOP on all matters) over the specifics of individual appointments and the organisational structure of particular units. The point is that SNCOs, or WOs if you want to be especially picky about it, can be 1ROs and frequently are. This is a principle which you yourself seem to accept. If you want to try and score points about it in a reductio ad absurdum argument knock yourself out ... alone.

LE

John,
Your aptitude for pedantry knows no bounds. I am not going to get into a protracted spat with you (because that's your SOP on all matters) over the specifics of individual appointments and the organisational structure of particular units. The point is that SNCOs, or WOs if you want to be especially picky about it, can be 1ROs and frequently are. This is a principle which you yourself seem to accept. If you want to try and score points about it in a reductio ad absurdum argument knock yourself out ... alone.

Like you I’m able to look at a website and see if it’s anywhere near best practice.....you’ve told us that the Army website isn’t good. The difference here is that you think it’s unimportant. I think it’s fundamental and that’s what I’m arguing. I’m allowed a different oppinion....

There is a significant difference between a business marketing skincare products and the Army. Actually, there are a few:-

1. You have multiple competitors selling similar stuff. Your website needs to be easy for first time visitors to navigate or they will tend to go elsewhere.
The Army has far fewer competitors, and for some career options has virtually none. Their website only needs to fulfill basic functionality.

2. You are selling a product which lasts a short time, so are dependent on repeat orders, which means repeat visits from customers. If their online experience of your business isn't great, they will tend to go elsewhere.
The Army is selling a career choice. Once a person has been through the process, they normally don't need to repeat it.

3. You are selling a product which will be delivered to them by someone else. Your only contact with customers is the online contact, which makes that online contact the be all and end all.
The Army is using its online presence only to act as an invitation for further direct contact.

LE

Report in today's Times (I can't post a link because of the paywall), but in essence in yesterday's defence committee the following revealed.

This year to date, Army recruitment will be 5000 (50%) short, Navy is on track to meet it's targets, and the RAF met it's targets 'months ago'

Perhaps the Army marketing strategy needs some help from the other two services.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
There are 26 million people in the UK who support Liverpool - Taxpayers.

LE

Ummm .... yes .... if it could only show some shiny new toys like a couple of aircraft carriers or some F-35 Bs, and reduce it's target numbers to the same level ...

Seriously, while the RN and RAF ads have knocked spots off the Army's, and the RN's 'Made in the RN' has been acknowledged as particularly good, I'm not so sure there are many lessons to be learnt and some aspects such as 'Street to Fleet' have been abject failures.